So you already dismiss the alternative that the social relations are the source of the personal individuation? The capable individual is what society in fact has in mind? — apokrisis

I kept it neutral in the first post, but I will say that you cannot have an individual without society. Individual identity is by-and-large constructed within an already existing social framework. Now, as to your idea of CAPABLE individual- this is where I bring forth a possible begging of the question.

Once you put forth a certain KIND of individual that institutions want to produce and perpetuate, we now have a situation where the individual and his identity is to promote the institutions for the sake of the institution. But you see, besides the fact that the individual FINDS himself procreated within institutions that are a de facto necessity, how is it that the individual must perpetuate the agenda of the institutions by having more people that will perpetuate the institutions? What purpose does it serve? The end goal then seems to be to keep institutions going for the sake of keeping institutions going, however negatively this affects individuals who are procreated to keep the institutions going.

If you say that evolution has created humans that have minds that want to promote survival through a certain cultural means, then this is simply restating the idea that institutions are perpetuated, you are just throwing in the word survival which is essentially the same thing at the species level, but not addressing the fact that it is still begging-the-question as to why keep the institutions going.

For assurance? Meaning? Certainty? Clarity? Belonging? Love? Something basic. — Bitter Crank

I mention routine and variation because this goes into these questions. Belonging, meaning, assurance, etc. are not forever, but are experienced for a duration of time. Then they become routine and thus, variation occurs, and then back to the routine. I don't think there will be a permanent satiation to the hunger for many. It will always be there. Something basic can be met for a moment, but then something else takes its place.

Many people do pair bond without any intention of continuing the species, you know. — Bitter Crank

As long as there are those who do pair bond and it results in the continuance of the species, the argument still stands.

I have thought, think, and will probably continue to think that anti-natalism is a cry from the heart. By that I don't mean antinatalists are profoundly unhappy (maybe you are, maybe you are not -- I don't know). What I mean is that antinatalists, and nihilists too, have a hungry heart -- it has not been satisfied yet. You are hungry for something. Actually, lots of people who are neither antinatalists nor nihilists are equally hungry. For assurance? Meaning? Certainty? Clarity? Belonging? Love? Something basic. — Bitter Crank

That is a good point. Routine gives some solace and not others. Likewise, variation gives some solace and not others. Most are content perhaps when they have both routine and variation. This allows for the appearance that they did something new and exciting and consequently are able to accept the routines they inevitably face, like a release valve. Then there are those who question the whole routine variation while participating themselves as that is the default option.

Antinatalism IS a trope: it's a virus. It's a meme. (and no, I don't think these things perpetuate and spread themselves. We are the vector.) — Bitter Crank

But so is procreation as an institution as well as other social institutions, and keeping society going the way we have in general can be considered many tropes playing out, so that is isolating one trope without taking into account the others. The difference is that this trope is questioning why we continue all the other tropes rather than merely following the tropes without question or only questioning one particular trope. Furthermore, if I was to keep with the theme of this thread, we are dominated by tropes of continuance. Cultural institutions, and genetic determinism for likelihood of procreation being a part of this.

I know I am small and un important, but that's the deal. — mcdoodle

That is the deal. Your preferences, happiness, ideal set-up and outcomes, or whether you even want to be a part of it in the first place, don't mean much. Whether you die out or suffer does not mean much. What does happen though, is the chain will keep being linked to the future via procreation- as the stability of the species is wrapped up in this, and it does not diminish from any individual's protest. Via genetics and cultural memes, the species continues.

But in the same big scheme of things--from a different perspective--individuals are all that matter--life is present only in individual creatures, not as an over-arching abstraction. Humans matter on an individual basis. Just try to not matter to yourself. — Bitter Crank

I guess this is what I am questioning. Individuals can never choose to be here, we are never fully satisfied, and all the other tropes I usually bring up via antinatalism. People's tendency for pair bonding with a mate to raise a little version of themselves seems to override the individual's state in the world. Humanity wanted you here- not just the direct last generation of your parents..Via genetic stabilization tendencies, via cultural stabilization tendencies, you are here, for good or bad.

To simply reduce the decisions of a parental process may diminish the role of genes and cultural conservation to stabilize the species, reproduce individuals who have a tendency to reproduce, overriding any individual experience or say in the matter.

There can be no selection without rejection. Try calling it 'natural rejection' for a while. It should make no difference to the theory... — unenlightened

Yes, I do not disagree with you here. You need to have differential reproduction in a given population at some point in the process. However, once organisms stabilize their populations in a new environment based on advantageous selection, often they will optimize for stable selection. Thus, anything that greatly deviates from this causes adverse effects and thus will cause that generation (or perhaps a bit later in the next few generations down the road) to die out. Therefore, once stabilization occurs, your idea about genes tending towards extinction does not apply. Or I should say, does not apply until some environmental change occurs.

Also, given that orgnanisms share many of the same genes that optimizes survival, in an overall level (looking at all species), once organisms survived in general, the genes that were passed on were still viable for survival and thus, genes with a tendency for survival are conserved (e.g. hox gene).

If you want teleology and purpose, why don't you just take up with the God of Abraham, who will give you both? You don't have to give up genes to do it, either. Just assign evolution and its mechanisms to the methods which God employs to carry out his teleological, purposeful will.

It seems like you are trying to find meaning by smuggling it across the border inside a package of evolution.

Don't like Jehovah? Zeus maybe? Amazon.com has other god-models you can order and have delivered by lightning bolt. — Bitter Crank

I am not advocating for an intentional teleology. Perhaps an inadvertent tendency towards maintaining stabilization in an environment while, with each generation, there is less tendency for genes that lead to extinction. Besides, I the discussion was not really about the mechanisms of evolution, which would have been a separate thread in a science forum. Rather, it is the implication that the individual does not matter here except as a vehicle in a broader process.

That's just your pro-life bias talking - as if the universe really wanted you. This is the odd thing, that this view is so primitive and antiscientific. It reanimates matter by way of de-animating itself, reintroduces the gods that it sought to displace, and gives exactly the central importance to life that it wants to remove.

To be honest, I'm at a loss to find the right place to cut through this circularity, so I'll have to bow out. — unenlightened

Once organisms stabilize their populations in a new environment based on advantageous selection, often they will optimize for stable selection. Thus, anything that greatly deviates from this causes adverse effects and thus will cause that generation (or perhaps a bit later in the next few generations down the road) to die out. Therefore, once stabilization occurs, your idea about genes tending towards extinction does not apply.

Let me be clear, its not a debate on the mechanics of natural selection- which I would characterize as random genetic mutations that may lead to features/behaviors of an organism being suitable for survival and reproduction at differential rates in a certain environment and in turn be able to reproduce a next generation and so on such that the traits that are more suitable continue to be carried on.

I don't agree with this. I think that teleology is bunk outside of sentient creatures thinking about things in terms of goals/aims/purposes. Re evolution, it's not that there are non-sentient goals of survival or anything like that. It's just that (a) offspring aren't identically/exactly replicated, and (b) it's simply a contingent fact that things that are (better) able to survive to procreate will pass their genes on. There's no teleology in that. — Terrapin Station

There is no aim, I agree, but there is an outcome of natural selection that optimizes survival and once at a level of stable reproductive rates, continues to survive accordingly due to surviving in the suitable environment.

No, you have the teleology backwards. The aim of genes is to go extinct, and most of them achieve this eventually. Natural selection provides the optimal situation for extinction to occur to all but the unfortunate minority. — unenlightened

No, when genes start optimizing reproduction (more people surviving and reproducing, etc.) it tends to retain the optimization strategies or adapt accordingly to the circumstances as time moves forward (until or unless a catastrophic event occurs). Add in the idea of memes and this too tends to optimizes "its own" and the species survival.

Well, obviously the title is as it is now, I accept that.

And yes, I think 'impersonal mechanism' would be an interesting replacement. Then my answer would be straightforward, that 'mechanism' is an illuminating metaphor but nothing more, and that I don't think people are here 'for' anything, other than for what they commit themselves to, when they find themselves here as we do. — mcdoodle

I think my answer would be similar to what I said to unenlightened's response. I'll just copy and paste it:

But the unthinking mechanism has a teleology of sorts, and that is to continue the project of life. It may not be designed with purpose, but it is there nonetheless. Notice, my examples are both ones whereby the outcome is whatever is optimal for continuing to live (both culturally surviving or genetically surviving). Natural selection just so happens to create the optimal situation for life to continue via adaptation. Cultural selection just so happens to create the optimal situation for culture to continue into the future. We are here due to these type of processes- they are not due to any decision made by us, but the unthinking mechanics of a process whose outcome is more life. You, the individual's preferences, ideals, and personal whatever, is not factored into this other than the general ability to optimize this process as the process would lose momentum otherwise. However, I think instead of understanding this implication, you are getting caught up with the title's wording.

Meaning makers came into existence. Meaning makers, of necessity, have the capacity to impose meaning on a meaningless world. We meaning makers can create and destroy pawns; we can generate ideas that "trend" mightily. If we were to disappear, the cosmos would return to meaninglessness. — Bitter Crank

I guess my answer would be similar to what I said to unenlightened's response. I'll just copy and paste it:

But the unthinking mechanism has a teleology of sorts, and that is to continue the project of life. It may not be designed with purpose, but it is there nonetheless. Notice, my examples are both ones whereby the outcome is whatever is optimal for continuing to live (both culturally surviving or genetically surviving). Natural selection just so happens to create the optimal situation for life to continue via adaptation. Cultural selection just so happens to create the optimal situation for culture to continue into the future. We are here due to these type of processes- they are not due to any decision made by us, but the unthinking mechanics of a process whose outcome is more life. You, the individual's preferences, ideals, and personal whatever, is not factored into this other than the general ability to optimize this process as the process would lose momentum otherwise. However, I think instead of understanding this implication, you are getting caught up with the title's wording.

No I don't. I think it's a muddle. One can be a pawn in someone else's game, if someone else is using one for some purpose not one's own. But an unthinking mechanism can have no purpose of its own. It is as if a driver complained that he had to go wherever the car took him. A passenger might reasonably complain, but not the driver. You can refuse to drive and then complain that the car is not going anywhere, but I'm afraid I have little sympathy. — unenlightened

But the unthinking mechanism has a teleology of sorts, and that is to continue the project of life. It may not be designed with purpose, but it is there nonetheless. Notice, my examples are both ones whereby the outcome is whatever is optimal for continuing to live (both culturally surviving or genetically surviving). Natural selection just so happens to create the optimal situation for life to continue via adaptation. Cultural selection just so happens to create the optimal situation for culture to continue into the future. We are here due to these type of processes- they are not due to any decision made by us, but the unthinking mechanics of a process whose outcome is more life. You, the individual's preferences, ideals, and personal whatever, is not factored into this other than the general ability to optimize this process as the process would lose momentum otherwise. However, I think instead of understanding this implication, you are getting caught up with the title's wording.

If this were true, the conclusion is essentially the same. The teleological mechanism creates more beings.

How I'm I implying it's using us? You don't think you can be a pawn in an unthinking mechanism?

If I change the title to "impersonal mechanism" would that convey the point for you and change the debate from semantics to the implications of this?

It doesn't matter what we call the idea you're getting at there. Doing things "for something else," being pawns to some aim or motivation or whatever, or your later comment re "reasons for," where you're not simply talking about a descriptive accounting of what's going on causally, etc. doesn't refer to anything that occurs in the world sans sentient beings assigning aims and goals and so on. — Terrapin Station

It does not matter whether the it is "motivations" or for some unthinking mechanism- it does not destroy the argument that it is doing something DUE to a thing outside the individual (mechanism or otherwise).

Even Dawkins himself admits under pressure, (and then ignores) that the selfish gene is a mere analogy; that genes have no will, no desire, and no view. And certainly nothing remotely like a purpose. — unenlightened

But I addressed that I was not talking about his view tout court (in full), just the idea that springs from this that we are beholden to something that is not our own will, but that of something beyond the individual. I even explained how the theory itself has been proven to be reductionist, and thus I was not talking about the theory for the theory's sake but merely as an analogy for something bigger than the individual.

Only living beings care. — unenlightened

And thus the obvious- since we are living beings, we care.

I do not feel like a pawn. In actuality, I feel like someone who is learning and exploring. When I observe babies growing into children growing into adults, this is what I also observe. So I make this the starting point for my philosophical thought. Rather than a pawn, I feel like someone who is learning to pawn structures in a game of chess. — Rich

A game of chess, that made you think you were pawning structures, but meanwhile you were its pawn the whole time. But, this view of learning and growing seems really narrowly focused. Life has more than this, of course. One time I ate ice cream and felt satisfied for a few minutes after.. life is not simply that moment of satiation, nor can I necessarily extrapolate from that moment. Even if I broadened the view to say that, I have had numerous moments of satiation, that would still be narrowly focused on one experience over many others.

Purposes only occur when sentient creatures think about things in tems of an overarching goal or credo that they're attracted to. — Terrapin Station

Then you can switch purpose with a word you like better. It does not necessarily change the whole "whole" versus "individual" part.

It's not clear what you mean by us being pawns. Am I a pawn of gravity? Am I unwittingly (or wittingly) being made to move towards the Earth's core? If not, is there something different about biological (or cultural) influences that makes it more a case (than with gravity) of being used for something else's purposes? — Michael

Gravity may be too far removed for it to directly influence whether there are more humans. Natural selection and cultural bias, however, are much better candidates for overarching reasons for the human species' continuance (and thus candidates that reign over the individual).

Apologies for the lateness in reply, I have educational commitments I have to attend to. — darthbarracuda

C'mon, you should have said setting up charitable foundations.. but you can use the long-term argument of creating future utility by getting educated and making more money.. Again, whether your intention was that or not, the most utility may or may not occur as a result. There is no good way to measure. There are simply too many factors. You helping Ethiopians could have prevented you from helping create more money that could have helped 5 Africans.. Oops.

I will grant that the metaphysical "kernel" as you mention is at the heart of pessimism, but I'll also argue that it's not just the "Will" (as that's Schopenhauer's thing), and neither is it exclusively these kernels. — darthbarracuda

That's just false. So we disagree right there. You are trying to change their argument so you can be seen as railing against it.

In fact I would argue that contingent harms are necessarily part of human existence. To exist means to be harmed in some random and unpredictable manner. Schopenhauer himself used many examples of contingent harms - think back to his analysis of the pain of the prey and the pleasure of a predator. This isn't the "kernel" he speaks of, but it's nevertheless an example of a contingent harm that characterizes an unfairly and unequally-distributed experience machine we call life. — darthbarracuda

Yes he did, but this was in regards to his major premise which was the Will (the kernel) which is never satisfied. It was not meant as simply a laundry list of utilitarian woes- though it may be taken that way if you don't know his major premise. To one not familiar with Schopenhauer, this would probably seem the case.

Well, again I mentioned earlier how it's not that we all have to get up and slave away doing things. There's charities that we can donate to and local events that we can participate in to help out the community and society at large. — darthbarracuda

Which many people already do. Granted, this still does not refute the claim that, people often create utility doing many things besides direct aide, and things unintentionally raises utility.

You mention how many good things can come unintentionally. Yet I would argue that you're missing the far greater goods that come with intentional focus! For every lazy sports-watching couch potato that comes up with a marvelous new idea, how many other lazy sports-watching couch potatoes don't, and live their whole lives with their asses glued to their seats? — darthbarracuda

Yep, the ones that create the tax base to help others, who buy the goods that create jobs, that allow for who knows what things that they did not intentionally mean to do. Again, you can never know, and besides the point, being that you are a consequentialist, it does not even matter their intention. The person who becomes a doctor because he vaguely wants to help people, created a lot of jobs, which created a lot of other jobs, and so on. The doctor who became the doctor, let's say did this also because it paid well comparatively and he liked the prestige it gave him. He could have gave direct aid all this time learning to be a doctor.. If every doctor did this, if EVERYONE did this, we would be providing nothing for aid, because we would all be helping so much, that nothing else gets created. As Adam Smith noted, the invisible hand of capitalism creates the most utility.. It need not be an economy, but rather any action whereby one is pursuing their own interests can increase the utility of others. Where there are inefficiencies in human interests or the process as a whole, government can step in to help shape the direction of the actions. This of course, is what we already have. By pursuing his own interests (helping people, prestige, money), he created the most utility for himself and others. The couch potato, has no inclination for any of this let's say.. great, besides his own utility being met, he has contributed by his investments in his 401k, consumption of goods, donations he makes every holiday, and friendships he created. As a consequentialist, fantasies of intentional focus, seem misapplied. Intention does not necessarily create more utility. What has proven to work, is leaving people alone to the invisible hand.. Mother Tereasas would be nothing with the things that are generated from average Joe's following their own interest.

The fact is that, just as you said, we don't know how to perfectly maximize utility. We don't know whether or not excessive luxury or leisure will result in these marvelous new inventions that will save countless lives. So the best thing we can do, given our epistemic stance, is to do what we do know will help. Not sit around waiting for inspiration to pop into the minds of your everyday hill-billy in Alabama. — darthbarracuda

No, this is changing the meaning of what I am saying. By doing what we "know will help", it may UNINTENTIONALLY create disutility. My stance was that we do NOT in fact know what helps overall. Certainly, out of EMOTIONAL DISTRESS/COMPASSION, we help the drowning victim. But, as far as spending all our time with direct aid, because we happen to not have brilliant ideas is a monstrous existence for anyone- Ethiopians and Americans and Pygmies in Africa alike. Your toning it down a bit might help your cause, but then, that really is just stating the status quo except for advocating for a bit more charitable contributions.. which is fine but not the big wave I think you wanted to make with this.

But you can disagree with this without changing anything about the OP, as the OP sets out to describe the differences between active and passive pessimism. The latter being more contemplative, removed, aesthetically-oriented and redemptive, the former being more pragmatic, radical, forceful and openly-disgusted with the world at large. For the active pessimist, then, there's really no place for any talk of "aesthetics" as a top priority or grand schema. There's really no place for "TRUTH" unless it's instrumental to our own ends. There's really no place for comfort, security, or loftiness unless it's in the service of some greater goal. — darthbarracuda

Yes, and I explained how I think you set up a false dichotomy so that you can put yourself in a position of being "right". However, I do not even accept your dichotomy as true to begin with. You created your own categories such that your argument cannot fail. I already presented to you Pessimism is mainly about the unrest of existence. If you do not like that, then perhaps you are not a pessimist. If you want to discuss the idea of giving more to charity, great.. but it does not have to do with Pessimism, but rather your own ethical stance, which apparently, you think all people, should follow.

There's really no place for "TRUTH" unless it's instrumental to our own ends. There's really no place for comfort, security, or loftiness unless it's in the service of some greater goal. — darthbarracuda

How is this justified?

So then, from a more personal view, as I tried to explain earlier, I don't see how these great fantastic amazing things like "TRUTH" or "A E S T H E T I C S" or "Transcendence" or any of that crap legitimately "fits" in the worldview of a pessimist. — darthbarracuda

I mean these are more your terms, and the way you are phrasing it. Rather, the pessimist sees the world as unrest beneath the surface. The human animal is at least partly able to comprehend this.

There is no beauty in this world, at least no beauty that doesn't come with a heavy price - and what sort of beauty is that? It's this kind of "clinginess" of passive pessimism that makes it what it is, like it accepts pessimism but doesn't "go all the way". — darthbarracuda

By aesthetics I mean more the structure of things- the structure of the metaphysics more than literal "beauty". It is a way of seeing the world.

I get the feeling, when reading his work (and others'), that they actually enjoy complaining about the world, in general at least, and it seems out of place and disingenuous. At least to me. — darthbarracuda

I enjoy it :). I get giddy from pessimistic turn of phrases. It consoles me that others feel this way. Its cathartic..

Assuming there aren't any objections, then, I would argue that unless someone is willing to embrace hypotheses like world destruction or biological sterilization or what have you, they really have no business talking about the suffering that inevitably calls for such action. It's like saying there's a fire down the street but being opposed to calling 9-11: like, then why did you even bring it up? Nobody really seemed to have gone far enough, from my ethical perspective, and it's disheartening. Nobody seemed to have the stomach to seriously consider how their pessimism might be implemented. The state of the world doesn't call for calligraphy or fine cuisine. It's out-of-place, like wearing a wedding dress in a war zone. It just doesn't fit, simple as that. — darthbarracuda

And that's just, like, your opinion man. Your opinion by the way, seems like a monstrous drudging one. If you want to help Africans or poor villagers somewhere, go do it! That is your utility that you want to pursue. It is a tormenting vision when applied to all people at all times and that comes out as self-righteous, definitely creating disutility if you want to promote your cause.

Right, exactly. Some people seem to be missing this point. It's not about making the world a utopia, but making it comparatively better than it is right now. We have made progress. It's not perfect and it never will be, but progress has still happened. It's ridiculous, I think, to say we haven't progressed at all. Of course we have.

No amount of passive lamenting is going to stop the machine of blind ambition from spreading to places where it ought not go. The active pessimist, then, is one who does not approve of this continuation, but nevertheless follows along to offer advice and clean up the mess made by these fools.

Also I will point out that it's not just about anthropocentric suffering, but sentio-centric suffering. — darthbarracuda

Pessimists focused traditionally on quieting the Will, the unrest that is the metaphysical kernel at the heart of existence. What you discuss is what I call "contingent harms"- they are circumstantial harms that humans face based on their biological/psychological/social/cultural/environmental circumstances. Traditionally, pessimists are concerned with the kernel. To admonish them for not focusing on contingent harms, is a bit misleading as Pessimists rarely focused on contingent harms- it is what makes a Pessimist a Pessimist. It is like admonishing a cat for not being a dog.

However, one might characterize Eduard von Hartmann as an "Active Pessimist" as he thought we have to hasten the time when everyone can come to the conclusion that we should not exist anymore, which I would assume would mean providing material well-being so we are all to become aware of our own pessimistic situation. Although, one can be a pessimist about his pessimism- or at least a defeatist :).

Because of the wisdom displayed in the action of the Unconscious, this is the best possible world; only this does not prove that the world is good, or that the world would not be better, the latter of which is true. Human life labors under three illusions: (1) that happiness is possible in this life, which came to an end with the Roman Empire; (2) that life will be crowned with happiness in another world, which science is rapidly dissipating; (3) that happy social well-being, although postponed, can at last be realized on earth, a dream which will also ultimately be dissolved. Man's only hope lies in "final redemption from the misery of volition and existence into the painlessness of non-being and non-willing." No mortal may quit the task of life, but each must do his part to hasten the time when in the major portion of the human race the activity of the Unconscious shall be ruled by intelligence, and this stage reached, in the simultaneous action of many persons volition will resolve upon its own non-continuance, and thus idea and will be once more reunited in the Absolute. — From the Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann article on http://www.iep.utm.edu/hartmann/

Also something to consider- leaving behind Pessimism and whether it should be utilitarian as you conceive it, your utilitarianism itself may be flawed. If everyone simply went off to help in whatever situation they can, that would leave little time to develop things and improve them in terms of technology, ideas, social change, etc.. There are so many ways that people create utility unintentionally. Who are you to decide which actions lead to the greatest good? The sports-watching couch potato could think of something on his spare time that immensely increases the utility of people and animals around the world, that he would never have done simply by directly providing aid/volunteer opportunities. In fact, if this guy volunteered, he would have not thought of that novel innovation that increased utility way more than direct aid. Further, the factors that lead to outcomes for greatest utility are so numerous, there is no reliable probability one can calculate to account for everything in terms of which action leads to greatest utility. Instead, direct aid would simply be following one's own notions of what's good, not bringing about the actual greatest good. This then would mean that one would simply follow one's own inclinations, neuroses, and etc. and not what is logically the best thing to do to increase utility at that particular time.

This then brings me to another objection... You say your philosophy is not about intentions, but it clearly is now that we see that it is inefficient to not pursue one's own utility in the free-market. Thus any imbalance pursued in light of this, would be about our intention of action rather than the outcome. The outcome of direct aid unintentionally creates more inefficiencies and to continue on the path despite this, would be simply to place value on the intention of the action.

Further, if you counter that we should do what we normally do, but on every waking free time, we should use it to "help" people, and thus provide utility ON TOP Of that which we like doing anyways, a) You would not know by any measure, whether this actually created DISUTILITY overall and b) you almost certainly would be creating a situation where life would be a tormenting robotic affair- where one does not even get to pursue the goods that are life's consolation.. Even the starving Ethiopian, if he/she was ethical himself would hope that you would also pursue a life with some happiness that goes beyond helping him/her.. even if he/she appreciates the immediate aid you gave him right there and then.. The hypothetical starving Ethiopian hopefully has ends THEY would like to pursue.. just like you or I.. Pessimists are under no more obligation to have a tormenting life of than others merely because they see life as unrest.

Right, this is why more "sophisticated" consequentialists typically advocate change through institutions and organizations. A mass effort. For the consequentialist, the state of affairs is what matters. What is moral is not always what makes you feel good. Of course, people are needed to actually go out and interact with those in need. But it's similar to a military campaign. For every soldier, there are ten support units behind him. The support units are necessary and important but don't get the "glory" so to speak. They are the units "behind the scenes".

I have an acquaintance who decided to switch majors to social work because he wanted to "help people". True, social work will help people, but he was more concerned about human interaction and all that. The "good feelings" of helping people. But let's not forget that impersonal donations of money or labor can do just as much, if not more, good. Giving $20 to a homeless person might make you feel good. Donating this $20 to a food charity will help far more people, though, and it will guarantee this money will go to good use. But it doesn't "feel" as good... — darthbarracuda

Yes, this becomes a political and organizational question. This involves policy, appropriations, non-profit donations, collaboration- actions that actually are being done currently by groups and interested parties (whether effective or with as much revenue is another question). One can give to charity and seek to influence political institutions as an individual donor, but it will take a community of people and vision. Therefore, your consequentialism entails that many people should organize in old-fashioned grassroots politics and thus is a bigger issue than $20 contributions each year. Rather, it entails civic involvement by all concerned parties. In short, your ideas are really political more than anything. It is a more an appeal to "Get out the vote" and be more involved in the community.

Some Pessimists might be at odds with especially utilitarian consequentialism altogether because utilitarian consequentialism assumes that improvements can take place when in actuality we are never really improving. The human condition is such that it does not happen. It is veiled utopianism, the most optimistic of optimistic ideas. It is to buy into the carrot and stick.. if we just work harder to live together better now, we can make it work for a future, more ideal state. That is just something you will rarely see a Pessimist say. So no, they are probably not breaking their own ideals- they probably never had them. If you want to REFUTE their ideals, that is one thing, but I do not think they are being hypocritical to their own ideals. So again, to entail utilitarianism with Pessimism is to unfairly tie two concepts together that are not necessarily entailed. Pessimism actually has very little in the way of ethics- it is mostly an aesthetic comprehension of the world. What one does about it is more open for interpretation. What it does have (i.e. Schopenhauer's compassionate ideal), is not necessarily utilitarian anyways.

This aesthetic comprehension, despite your protestations, does have to do with the ennui/instrumentality/vanity/absurdity of existence. It is the idea that there is an uncalmness to existence. With the animal, especially the human animal, this becomes its own self-contained suffering in the organism. There is the need to survive, and then this need to thrash about on the stage of the world with whatever entertainments we can pursue. We not only deal with present pains, but must anticipate future ones and worry about the past. What there is not, is ability for complete repose. This would be sleep. We MUST get up, we MUST survive, we MUST entertain. On top of this kernel of uncalmness, is the complexities of contingent harms that we must face. Is this the real metaphysical "truth" of the world, or is this just the product of a certain temperament? I brought that up in a previous thread, but indeed, there is a Pessimist aesthetic and a certain byline that runs through it.

As you note, Schopenhauer's ethic came from lessening one's will by way of being less individuated- it was not necessarily about the outcome of compassionate acts. It is much more of a metaphysical problem he is working on. Each person, being a manifestation of Will in some illusory individuation that causes suffering, is supposed to extinguish one's Will by being less individuated and more concerned in others. However, Schopenhauer also thought that character was generally fixed, and only the rare individual had the capacity to be truly compassionate, or at least compassionate in a way that makes them less individuated. Compassionate acts are one step, but even this is not complete in his conception, to be complete everyone must be an ascetic and renounce one's will-to-live. This of course, is a tall order.

Though I know you disagree with the execution of Benatar's consequentialism/utilitarianism in regards to his asymmetry logic, you may want to see what he has to say about ethics outside of antinatalism, as you can see where another antinatalist/pessimist that is consequentialist/utilitarian balances consequences and personal responsibility. I honestly don't know much else about what his ethics entails based on his premises. He is obviously most famous for applying his assumptions to antinatalism in particular. How he handles altruism in general would be interesting to explore.

Personally, I do not think you have to go so deep as to finding starving children and drowning victims. I find it interesting to note that we humans can suffer so much from the minutiae of life. Working with other people, trying to overcome daily dilemmas, trying to deal with annoyances great and small, all the harms I brought up in previous threads- the problems we face are continuous in any economic circumstance- they just get more refined. Yes, water/food/basic needs are the foundation, but the problems do not end, they simply get pushed up the chain. I am not saying we should not work so people get to have less dire problems, but the problems will persist, they just get more nuanced. The Pessimist rightly sees that the problems do not go away. You can pat yourself on the back, have a secular "Kingdom of God" complex by working to end this or that problem, but the problems of existence do not go away. Existence itself does not provide a smooth existence simply because one's basic needs are met. If this was so, Pessimists would simply not hold the notion of Pessimism. There are more problems, especially for the complex human animal, than basic needs. Though this should be met, there are just so many subtle and nuanced ways people can experience harm, including the very instrumentality of existence itself. We have a mouth and an asshole.. stuff comes in, and shit comes. This is like instrumentality in the flesh! Add to the fact our big brains- we have complex social relations and technology. Thus we must deal with our own complex individual psychological/physical welfare, we have to deal with the complex and often negative social relations, we have to navigate the complex technological behemoth of our economy, all in the pursuit of survival and keeping ourselves entertained. We suffer in more complex ways than the animals, and we are aware of it! Bringing another person into existence is bringing another person into the burdens of life. It is literally giving another person burdens to deal with, so they can what? every once in a while feel the goods that life can offer?

Also, there are goods that tend to ameliorate the general angst of life more than others, and, if one were a utilitarian/consequentialist, at the least, I would think that one would want to promote these goods for others. It is not just that one should have the basic goods of life, but if those basic goods are met, what then? It is to pursue some sort of content, even if, as I stated earlier, it just makes one addicted. It is at least a consolation people can have. Thus I see no need in bashing those who indulge in them- even while perhaps, wanting to promote others' welfare. Thus, long-term relationships, friendships, flow activities, being immersed in the aesthetic calm of music/art, and learning can be goods that may be worth promoting for others, or at least hoping they can achieve. Most importantly, if you do not indulge in those goods yourself, your very logic of helping people makes no sense- it becomes an absurd circular logic. We must help people so they can help people, so they can help people. At the least, you want to help people so they can get some enjoyment for life, and thus this implies, you should also get enjoyment of life, just as you want to see enjoyment from others. Now, this does not mean that these goods are worth it to bring new life. They are simply consolations for already being here. In fact, they are always imperfect goods- relationships can lead to strife, art/music can get old lose its luster, flow activities can be hard to achieve and the momentum one had can be lost, learning can simply become tedious.

I think I've explained to you before how I hate guilting people, but all anyone has to do is imagine the suffering a wild animal feels while being devoured by its predator, or sympathize with the unknown nobody in Ethiopia who hasn't had anything to eat for two weeks. — darthbarracuda

One can sympathize, but most don't go out of their way to take a plane to these impoverished regions to stop it. That does not seem to happen. It's not prescriptive but descriptive of what appears to be ordinary human behavior. The Pessimist, though shining a light on such sad situations, seems to also have no more innate impulse to take that plane either. Is this hypocrisy? I'll explain that with some of your other quotes.

Not precisely, and I would personally feel bad about intentionally bragging about my adventures in altruism. Although I will admit that at times I feel a sense of superiority that I can only see as justified. — darthbarracuda

Perhaps there is a thrill in feeling a bit superior, but my guess is most people feel good when they help others. However, this diminishes over time, hence its commodification- almost as a lifestyle choice. The realization that they feel good helping others, makes it so they may volunteer, and perhaps during special times of the year (holidays for example). It's like getting a hit of oxytocin or serotonin. They may exercise, play some game, and then volunteer. However, as soon as it becomes a burden to themselves, whereby their own pursuits are being heavily diminished only to pursue others' welfare, this becomes a negative outcome for themselves and thus loses the incentive- the good feelings are no longer there associated with it.

I would say that there this sort of enjoyment is not as important than minimizing the suffering these people feel. This goes back to distributive inequality issues. I believe that the angst and ennui that characterized pessimistic philosophies in the past is largely irrelevant when compared to the feelings experienced by those worse-off.

Indeed it seems wrong to feel ennui because one knows someone else is being tormented, because this means one is viewing them as some kind of tarnish in a world they would rather see as good. — darthbarracuda

Again, people just don't work like that- even Pessimists. Let's take homelessness. It is a large structural problem. If you went to certain neighborhoods or regions, you may be approached every five minutes by those asking for food, a ride, and most likely money. You may help one guy, you may help two guys, but this goes back to the commodification that most people unintentionally place the act. It made them feel good- "Today I helped these two people by giving them $20 to eat for the day" each. As soon as it becomes a financial burden, the activity is stopped. However, the real cost to "really" help these people is actually in the tens of thousands of dollars and up to millions of dollars. There is mental health care, substance abuse rehabilitation, housing projects, etc. Even for one person, this is expensive. This actually takes political and community action to help solve, and even then the problems don't just disappear but are cyclical. Anyways, this is just one social ill that is way beyond one person's charity or volunteering or even a lifetime of a Mother Teresa lifestyle.

Now, the Mother Teresa types are often religiously inspired- so they much of their actions are trying to model a religious ideal or mandate and even using it to proselytize. They are trying to get a metaphysical change from the action and save souls while they are doing it. The good deeds are bringing about the Kingdom of God or bring about a spiritual change. Some people might genuinely be doing these actions out of some sort of innate capacity for extreme altruism, but this is rare, as Schopenhauer pointed out.

However, are you committed to Schopenhauer's metaphysics whereby the saintly compassionate person legitimately lessens their wills? I do not think that is your position. You are trying a more consequentialist/pragmatic approach which is based on some sort of knee-jerk empathy reaction. This just does not happen. The absurd end goal of such a philosophy would be the logic whereby we all suffer equally in the slavish notion of extreme self-denial and altruism. Thus, the goods that ARE available in life are negated for all (or at least the Pessimist). The consolations of goods (especially long-term goods), may be seen as an addiction, but this too is part and parcel of the fact that we suffer. This addiction, while being an addiction (life is just okay enough to deal with), it is still a necessary component right there with the suffering. It cannot be annihilated from the equation. Thus the best one can do is make do with long-term goods, help out as much as possible without it becoming simply a negative slavish force for oneself and strip all long-term goods from one's life (thus making one's goals to help others more meaningful as they too can pursue long-term goods), and finally, to not procreate, and thus end the harm and addiction to the next generation.

Active, purpose-driven pessimism eschews aesthetic comfort and decadence for a prescription to end the problem once and for all. This entails participating in and supporting public institutions focused on maximizing welfare and making the world a better place, and actively advocating pessimistic philosophies, within the constraints of self-preservation. — darthbarracuda

This smacks a bit too much of religion- the Kingdom of God and whatnot. However, these apocalyptics were looking for redemption at the end of their actions- the more they helped, the closer the World to Come would be manifested. What is the Pessimist's incentive?

The ordinary human experience is not to experience so much debilitating guilt that they just compelled at all seconds to helping the poor, the destitute, the downtrodden, etc.. So guilt alone does not impel the majority of people, or even the brilliant Pessimist intellectual, to work at all times for the welfare of others. Is it to impress his fellow man as to what a great person he/she is; in other words pride in how selfless he/she is? Most people do not have such hubris, and if they did, it is much too easy to use it to aggrandize themselves in less draining and more interesting ways. For Schopenhauer, perhaps being a compassionate saintly person was ideal, but he also had a view of character which seemed to indicate that only the truly compassionately "gifted" could ever reach such negation of their own will. Perhaps Schopenhauer was too vain to admit his defect of character, but certainly, he did not achieve this ideal and thus was not of a character of one who had the capacity to be so will-less. Perhaps this is a cop-out- some people have the right stuff, and others do not and thus did not give enough credence to free-will to justify why some people are more compassionate than others rather than everyone, especially the Pessimist, doing his/her part.

There are two main points that I can add besides what was said above:

1.) If the point of alleviating suffering is such that those who were alleviated from some of their suffering would then enjoy their lives more, it would be a contradiction of the very logic by not "indulging" in the very enjoyment of life (the positive goods) that were hoped for in the others' alleviation of suffering. Rather, if we were to only think of others' alleviation of suffering, life would be even more absurdly tormenting than it was originally, as not even its enjoyment, that which is the goal of alleviating others' suffering, would be enjoyed by anyone.

2.) As others commented above, Pessimists inherently think that suffering cannot be eradicated. Much of the sentiments you display seem almost religious in character (Abrahamic religions, mostly). However, this religious exhortation to charitable action works in the context of religion due to the idea of an End of Times- that they are working to bring about the Kingdom of God. Without such a context, a cathartic metaphysical "something to show for it", it is essentially putting a band-aid over a mortal wound and then saying- you must be a good Pessimist, like they used to say you must be a good Christian.

Yes; you are just failing to see the connection. — Jeremiah

Please enlighten me on my blindspot.

You are trying to define the value of life relative to its contrition to society. — Jeremiah

No, what I said in the OP is that if you notice, most people don't contribute the great things that bring major utility to society- it's only a small number of people who "get" to do that and an even smaller number who are recognized for it in any significant way. The consensus on this forum was that this is not a problem. Then I agreed and said that if we are not providing major contributions, we are pretty much maintaining what is already there. We survive by learning and maintaining roles, get involved in relationships, hobbies and any other number of things to pass the time. We do this and repeat, creating this for others by procreating- assuming that future people should do this too. Keepn' it going.

If you can't find meaning and purpose in your life unless you become some great historical figure then that is a problem with your ego. — Jeremiah

Then you missed my point. It was actually that it does not matter that we make no great contributions. I'm simply taking that as out of the equation for most of us. We are just maintaining our cultural milieu and institutions all the while overcoming the obstacles of harm. We are surviving and finding ways to not be bored with other people and hobbies. Apparently more units of people need this too.

I think someone is dealing with feelings of inadequacy. — Jeremiah

This is just going with my theme that life is pretty much an instrumentality- we do to do to do. The grandiose inventor, eccentric genius, etc. is another myth that the media wants to promote as feel good pieces to make us think there is more than just going to work, hobbies, family, friends. Thus it provides hope that there is the 1% there doing these "great" things. The implication though is that the rest is just maintaining the system, not progressing it (whatever that means). As Bitter Crank points out, you need someone to clean the toilets so the "Giants" can progress humanity..

Also this brings up the idea that we do not need to progress humanity. What for? Why are we pumping more units of people out there? So Jeremiah can be on a philosophy forum and comment? So you can really "do" something? Why create the "do something" in the first place? Why do we need to create people so they can do something? So basic, but no one really has a good answer, without sounding like a smug, arrogant prick.

And it's an important problem because everyone would like to do great things, and yet most of those who would like to do great things always fail. And as we all know, it's not worth always trying if you always fail ;) — Agustino

Thanks.

And these people are fine with the idea that they will never achieve their ambitions - because the stars may never align. They never depend on fulfilment of their goals to live a content, and otherwise meaningless life. In other words, they put it all on the line - either they will fulfil their ambition, or they will be nothing at all - no middle ground. — Agustino

Okay, but as you seem to note, this means that the 99.9% are always shut out from the real gears of technological, social, and aesthetic change or appreciation.

I don't know, yes the majority is needed in a Butterfly Effect way, meaning without them you won't have the major contributors born in the first place and a society woundnt be there to contribute to. However I can imagine a counter factual world in which society was static with no real innovative changes. That is not actually the case though. Rather, a small percentage of contributors exponentially increase the utility and welfare of a population while the majority consume it. The problem is that most people just don't have the circumstances and other factors to be major contributors.

The Giants I refer to are not necessarily the famous ones with all the headlines. They could include anyone who contributed, whether they be other lesser known members of the team, previous contributors, colleagues or mentors. Even if you widen the concentric circles of those directly involved in the contributions, the 99.99 just becomes 99.9%. That leaves the others as just consumers and admirers. Read your bios, watch their docs, be as knowledable about them as you want. If they are lesser know, perhaps dig deeper to find the contributors.

When stumped you go through some modification of the CI procedure. — Cavacava

Well, this is the problem I would like fleshed out.. How does that look for an everyday situation? Can it really be applied for the real human and not this abstract Kantian fictitious character?

I think authenticity is about the coherence between how we act and our acceptance of responsibility for these actions, regardless of their size. — Cavacava

But to the point of the OP, can the CI be useful in everyday decisions or only "major ones" (murder, stealing, etc.). If this is the case, Kant's morality is actually rather confined and does not say much for the positive striving of human ends. In fact, it may even be its biggest flaw, as it is simply following logic to follow logic, but has no attachment to what is valuable for humans which is arguably in the realm of morality. It is at the least a cousin in value theory.

I'll answer both. Kant's claim was that morality wasn't about material consequences but was about perfecting our characters. Whether shit goes well or badly for you is in God's hands. — Wosret

I am guessing because the CI was central to his philosophy, a good character was central to being better at following the dictates of the CI. If this is the case, then this is a vicious circle. We live simply to be good at following the dictates of a logical moral reasoning but for no ends except to follow the logical moral reasoning. Thanks Kant! Way to suck the life out of life!

I don't know about grand purposes, but everyone is off doing shit for reasons all the time, and that's what I encounter in my day to day life. There is no justification for good things, they are their own justifications. They are justified by virtue of being the things they are, and being good things themselves, are the fodder of justification of less quality things. — Wosret

So it looks like you think that there are some goods that people are living for. Therefore, the CI in this case is simply a way to act when there are bugs (murder, stealing), but is impotent for what we are positively striving for (that is to say, what is valuable).

Also, to get to the point of the OP, how about non-major things in everyday life, how granular or useful is the CI in solving daily decisions on how to act?

I don't see how "consequentialism" can lead to anything other than "if it helps me win, then it's good", and the only mitigating factor being deontological... the ends justify the means. The better the ends, the more justifiable any means becomes. — Wosret

With Kant, the "Ends" seem vague to me. Besides that we are autonomous free agents in this Kingdom, what exactly are the Ends, if not the fulfillment of some sort of intrinsic goods? So Kant's CI may be its own consequentialism- mainly that of fulfilling ends, but what of the ends themselves? What are we striving for as humans in the first place? What is the point of being autonomous agents? The kind of things like stealing, murder, and such are the bugs in the system... What are we trying to do in this system, according to Kant? You may fill in your own theme here, but please make it clear whether the Ends you are filling in are yours or you are trying to convey Kant's take on this.

I want to find a reasonable critique of Sartre's: ''Existence precedes essence.''

Why is the statement wrong? And could it be proven wrong without using religion? — Kazuma

The essence of something is that which if you took it away, the identity would change to something else. Identity is usually a convention of language. Humans being the only animals with language, we create identity based on certain measurements/distinctions. Once the convention is established as to the definition of a thing, we can then determine at what point a thing is no longer a thing. Interestingly enough, once a thing has been a thing, it's parts can still be referenced to the prior situation of that thing. A smashed table, can still have legs that once were a part of the thing, but are now its own thing. So oddly, the trace of a thing can not be taken away once it has already been established. The thing can have residual existence beyond its presence as a reference.

Definitions come from animals with language, but what are definitions of something? It is a combination of the material/causal/form/final cause. The problem is how general one goes. Most of the time, definitions of essences have to be as general as possible.. A table can have more than four legs, or no legs at all, so that's not it.. Perhaps a table must be simply made of a solid material and be for the purpose of putting things on.

What Sartre was getting at is that, since we are the creators of the language, and have self-awareness, it is hard to actually put an essence to the very thing that creates essences in the first place. We can say that humans have a certain molecular structure, made from so-and-so-stuff, but purpose-wise, it is hard to provide an essence of individuals, beyond perhaps keeping metabolism at a certain rate. However, even that can be questioned in the case of suicide. Therefore, natural things can only be described in terms of causal, material, and formal definitions, but can not include final causes. It is final causes, where I think Sartre was getting at. If we did provide a definition for a final cause, we would have to be extremely general- perhaps the ability to survive and pursue goals.

@Bitter Crank
There are a lot of themes in Tolkien ripe for philosophical discussion- the nature of friendship is a large one. One major theme is that of power and control. The One Ring can represent many traditionally negative traits- greed, lust for power, control over others, deception, etc. Tom Bombadil is significant in that he was, as someone explained earlier a "Buddha-like" figure in that his disposition was such that he did not seek out control or power and thus the Ring meant nothing to him. Of course, this also brings up the question, "Is one naturally inclined to seek power, domination or is it free will?" Certainly, there are "personality-types" that "naturally" take control due to the ability to coordinate, charisma, and otherwise.. Bombadil had wisdom, but no desire to use this for the coordination of others- unless one happens upon his dwelling near the Brandywine River. So perhaps it was always in Bombadil's nature to be free from the will's desire for desire as that was just his nature.. This in a way makes him not a heroic figure as simply an ideal.

This can be compared with Gandalf, who seems to have more choice in his use of immense power. He is a Maia, and had much power from the Undying Realm to cause things to happen- to control things to his Will, even if it was meant for good. Instead, he chooses, even possibly against his own better judgement, to allow others to make their choices and not control them directly with is power, which presumably he could have utilized in much greater strength than he chose to. This in a way, makes Gandalf a hero in that he is able to cajole and convince, and allow others to make choices, but does not directly force the outcome.

There is another theme in Tolkien of knowledge, and greater awareness of self, "Know Thyself!" as the Oracle of Delphi might say. The Hobbits, for all their innocence, lacked the deeper knowledge of Middle Earth's history and great struggles of present and past. They indeed lived an idyllic if somewhat petty society. However, for living in a bubble, they gave up agency in the greater world that surrounded them, to the point that they were not even aware of their immanent destruction. Bilbo, and later Frodo along with the other hobbits of the Fellowship, were some of the only cross-overs who understood the idyllic life, but they also became aware of the greater depths of the Earthly realm as they ventured further into Middle Earth and met with more peoples and regions. They were able to understand more about their world, how it worked, what kind of people were out there, even some of the more hidden aspects. They dared to step out of their comfort zone, but they lost their innocence. Indeed, they had gained greater awareness about themselves and their world than any other hobbit of The Shire. Thus, there is a sense that though one may stay in the slumbers of domesticity, one loses the wisdom of depth and participation in the greater world, if one does not choose to learn and experience new things. The hobbits were not beyond reproach when it came to the Ring, they were not like a Tom Bombadil who, by his very nature is incorruptible. If they do not learn and experience the world, they too may be victim to their own desire for control.